Fuji vs Leica. For colors and IQ.

[Ko.Fe.]

I'll never understand this type of thread... both are great for actual photography.

My actual photography is done with iPhone. I take pictures of OS, SW license to see it better.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Fujifilm x-trans sensors are very different to everything else in terms of color. Amongst other reasons, this is one of the main reasons I love using them. I find it difficult to explain quantitatively except that I don't feel that the output with minimal tweaking looks like it's from a digital camera. They have a tendency to blend the highlights very gently and the whole upper register of tones is very pastel. That's not to say it looks definitively 'filmish' but it doesn't carry the same sort of garish 'heaviness' to the colors that I find most digital files do - which I spent a LOT of time and effort softening out in post with my canons/olympus/nikons.

Everything I have recently shot on my blog Dirty Eyes has been with an x-trans sensor fuji, so theres the proof in my pudding. I do VERY minimal PP.

This.
I read it and it makes sense to me.

While "shooting RAW and PP" it is done and gone for me. If camera, lens can't give SOOC JPEG1 you like, it is wrong camera or you are wrong with camera. 🙂

 

[jsrockit]

My actual photography is done with iPhone. I take pictures of OS, SW license to see it better.

Ok, but you seem to go back and forth between loving the fact that some of your favorite photographers use the cheapest digital cameras (and make great images) and also comparing (for instance Leica and Fuji) for magical minutia. Is it boredom (it's ok if it is, we can understand that) or are you not convinced, at some point, that the camera doesn't matter as much anymore?

 

[jsrockit]

Dirty Eyes has been with an x-trans sensor fuji, so theres the proof in my pudding. I do VERY minimal PP.

I'm not concerned about the camera used (because I think you could have used other equipment), but there's some really interesting work on this blog... I find it appeals to me more so than your street work and I like that it varies wildly in mood and style vs. your street work. You're versatile.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Ok, but you seem to go back and forth between loving the fact that some of your favorite photographers use the cheapest digital cameras (and make great images) and also comparing (for instance Leica and Fuji) for magical minutia. Is it boredom (it's ok if it is, we can understand that) or are you not convinced, at some point, that the camera doesn't matter as much anymore?

It is OK to be boredom if you don't understand. I'm exactly the same. 🙂

My favorite photographers where using film cameras. My thread was about them getting old and using some cheap digital cameras. And somehow I don't give a crap for their digital photography. I'm only interested in their film photography.

Where is no comparing of magic from digital Leica and Fuji in this thread.
I looked at thousands Fuji taken pictures and at thousands Leica taken pictures. I found Fuji images better technically for my taste.

Sorry, I'm technical person. I was involved in technical aspects of computers graphics and digital image processing, presentation since nineties. My eyes are trained to see what average Joe's can't see. This is why to me camera's sensor is matter. Take it as my fault. I'm not as artist as you and other "it is not the camera" are.

Cheers, Ko.

 

[uhoh7]

Sorry, I'm technical person. I was involved in technical aspects of computers graphics and digital image processing, presentation since nineties. My eyes are trained to see what average Joe's can't see. This is why to me camera's sensor is matter.

At Base ISO no Fuji can compete with the Full Frame Leica sensors technically, especially when they are armed with weapons like the 50 APO, a lens far beyond any Fuji.

If your technical eyes do not see this, you may need some correction 🙂

That's not to say Fuji is not a great platform. I fully understand why so many love them, and I see very good images from them.

But come on. I don't pretend my M9 will outshoot a Leica S. And that's about the relationship between Fuji APS-C and Digital M.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

uhoh7. About my eyes...

Yours shots recently shown here of trailer and ski slope were the most obvious prof what M9 is awful (sometimes, I guess) on low ISO.

Cheers, Ko.

 

[gavinlg]

I'm not concerned about the camera used (because I think you could have used other equipment), but there's some really interesting work on this blog... I find it appeals to me more so than your street work and I like that it varies wildly in mood and style vs. your street work. You're versatile.

That's a wonderful compliment, thankyou.

 

[Beemermark]

is the color rendition of sensors really something to pay attention to these days? they all look very, very similar to me.

Not sure but I would think the monitor, computer software, printing software, etc would over ride any color rendition between cameras. I have an M9 and an X-E2 can't can't tell the difference.

Only time I could really tell the color rendition of camera lenses was when I was shooting Kodachrome. I can still look at slides (if not too faded) and tell which ones were shoot on a Nikon or Leica. Never could tell on a print.

 

[vladimir]

When the light is perfect, the M9 captures such a perfection. It maintains the original beauty, even if subtle. This is a very special characteristic in the M9. I could be wrong here, but this is how I see it. Things get close to film.

I just recently process images taken with Leica M9 some years ago in Lr. Compering it to my present M 240 it looks different, I know it is subjective, but I would almost call it better, different sensor, different look I guess. (That is DNG no JPEG).

 

[willie_901]

At Base ISO no Fuji can compete with the Full Frame Leica sensors technically
....

Please be more specific. I am not sure what you mean by "technically". Does this opinion include the M9/M8 sensors?

As can be seen here the M240 dynamic range (as measure by un-rendered, raw-datastatistical analysis) is identical at ISO 100 and 200. Dynamic range is directly proportional to the signal to-noise ratio. DR and SNR always decrease as the camera's ISO setting increases (unless the final data values are produced by digital multiplication after they leave the ADC). In all fields of measurement, SNR is a primary technical component of data quality because the uncertainty of the data decreases as SNR increases.

The Leica Q data is unique (strange) until ISO 400 where it behaves as most other cameras behave.

Above ISO 1600 the Fujifilm data is also strange as Fujifilm switches from analog signal amplification to only digital raw integer multiplication to increase global brightness. All ISO 1600 data are computed from underexposed ISO 200 raw values.

Otherwise, compared to the Xtrans I/II APS-C sensors, the M240 has approximately 1/2 to 2/3 stop more DR (and SNR) at all ISOs. This difference is less than the maximum one would expect based only on the difference in sensor areas.

The signal part of the SNR depends on three things:

o all the light that reaches the sensor when the shutter is open
o the sensor area.
o the sensor's efficiency

The first two determine the exposure while the third depends on the sensor assembly technology.

Of course the raw data signal-to-noise ratio is just one component of IQ. But it is one that can be objectively measured. The properties of the color-filter array and micro-lens assemblies are also very important. For those who use in-camera JPEGs, automated WB and the JPEG rendering algorithms play a major role. Comparing these, and other, aspects of the camera design becomes highly subjective. The vast differences possible in raw data rendering during post-production muddy the waters completely.

And I'm not even discussing lenses.

There are so many subjective factors that determine the final IQ, without context, the term IQ itself is meaningless.

 

[narsuitus]

For colors, details and overall IQ the winner for me is... Fuji.

Yesterday, I compared a Leica to a Fuji for colors, details, overall IQ, and price. Even though I loved the rangefinder focusing, the winner for me was ... Fuji.

$3900 Used Leica M Type 240 body in excellent condition (full frame)
$ 650 Used 90mm f/2 Leica Summicron lens in good condition
$1800 Used 35mm f/1.4 Leica Summilux lens in good condition
--------
$6350 Total

$427 Used Fuji X-Pro1 body in excellent condition (APS-c)
$744 Used 56mm f/1.2 Fujinon lens in excellent condition
$695 Used 23mm f/1.4 Fujinon lens in excellent condition
--------
$1866 Total


Photographers by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[2WK]

I'll never understand this type of thread... both are great for actual photography.

Obviously. But this is a bit of a gear-head forum and I think the original post is about comparing two camera systems....i think.

I have had both systems. The Fujis are great but they are not quite at the same level as the Leicas...but you pay a lot more for that slight edge.

Even aps-c vs aps-c the X-Vario out resolves the X-pro1. At very fine detail, the Fuji cannot produce the same results (both raw and jpeg or course).

For color the Fujis are fine but I did not like my results with Lightroom...much more satisfied with Capture One. For the Leicas I never really got along well with the M240 and much prefer the X-Vario especially for skin tones...which is very important to me. After shooting hundreds of thousands of frames with both, my general feeling is that the Leicas produce a cleaner image. Under some conditions the Fuji image would be more muddy. The Leicas deliver a transparency that is more true-to-life. All very un-technical terms but this is my opinion.

Ultimately I ended up selling off my Fuji system.

 

[ferider]

Check out my respective blind test http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153756.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Check out my respective blind test http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153756.

Thank you, I did. 🙂

This weekend I also spend time on Flickr looking at Leica Monochorome, M240, M9 and M8 images in Black and White. Thousands of pictures and photogs on Flickr.
To my eye it wasn't very special most of the time. Some pictures with nice resolution, but it isn't my priority. Fuji BW is alright as well. And even R-D1 with very old sensor has interesting bw as well.

After it I started to check M8, M9, M240 color pictures again. Some, not so many images which are "crisp and juicy" in very special way. While with Fuji images I have seen on Flickr I would describe it as the world of fruitful saturation.

My impression is what with Leica M series you have to work the camera for good colors and where are not so many good examples of it on Flickr. But Fuji X-series and lenses seems to give higher rate for nice colors. Fuji 35 lens is very impressive prime lens.

I like this picture, btw. Good skin colors for low, artificial light and impressive resolution. And it is Leica M240.

Photographers by Narsuitus, on Flickr

But it is all just my impression, maybe I'm wrong.